Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interview with MPAA Chief Dan Glickman

Posted by michael on from the mama-don't-your-babies-grow-up-to-use-kazaa dept.

farmerbuzz writes "USAToday has an interview with Dan Glickman (Jack Valenti's replacement as the CEO of the MPAA) where he announces that the MPAA will begin suing movie downloaders. An interesting point brought up in the interview: 'At the time the RIAA announced its lawsuits, it said music sales had fallen 25% over a three-year period. The MPAA is in a much different situation. Box office receipts aren't down at all -- 2003's figures were $9.5 billion, the second biggest in history.'"

3 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. HA! by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Troll
    There's no question the RIAA reinforced that property rights needed to be protected. They did a great job in getting the word out that stealing copyrighted music was illegal. In the short term, it caused them some problems, but long term they were helped greatly by the campaign.

    LOL, they still don't get it, do they? Sharing is not illegal. Selling is illegal. If I make a copy and give it to a friend, that will never be illegal. If I sell it, then that is illegal. Plus, ever since the RIAA started their hell, I have not purchased one CD. I refuse to support people who use KGB and Gastapo tactics.

    BTW, are these the same people who are forcing 30 minutes of commercials before movies?

    Greed works, Greed is right. HA!

    Man, this cynicism sucks. It is taking so much energy.

    And I can't help but notice the word "proprietary". That reminds me of my IBM ps/2 30sx, which had microchanel.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  2. Re:Keep those DVDs cheap boys... by DebianDog · · Score: 1, Troll

    Garfield Torrent ;-)

  3. Re:Fuzzy math by vsprintf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's back up. If you're going to stop buying stuff, that's one thing, and, duh, is completely ok.

    Um, duh, that's what I said originally. You interpreted that to mean I was going to go do some underhanded P2P stuff. You are a brainwashed tool.

    Yet you still didn't answer my question. What should be in the public domain? Mickey Mouse, which is near the end of his copyright lifespan? Maybe. There's an argument for that. The Beatles catalog (as another poster suggested)? Well they're not all dead yet and Congress originally said life-of-author, so the fact their not still a band shouldn't matter.

    As I suggested, you should read a history book. Congress originally provided a copyright for 14 years which could be extended to 28 years by request. Mickey Mouse would have been public domain decades ago. The fact that two of the Beatles are still alive has nothing to do with it. They made millions from their works, and those works should now, rightfully, be in the public domain. Sonny Bono being elected to Congress should not have had the end effect of screwing the people.